(Don’t blame me, if Dr. Mann wants to post publicly viewable pictures on his Twitter feed showing himself “after a few drinks” while simultaneously suggesting other people are dumb, who am I to argue?)

132 thoughts on “A Mann walks into a bar…”

And he got his apostrophes the wrong way round… it should have read ‘want NMS’s raw data?…ask NMS for it.’
And WTF are WUWT’ers? The ‘ers’ of WUWT maybe???
Moral: Don’t post when you’re angry and drunk.

Well Dr Mann (since we now know he’s reading this blog, may as well address the comments to him directly) can I ask you to explain how asking the NMS’s for their data will tell us what data Jones used? If the NMS’s respond, how do we know what they supplied us with is the same as what they supplied Jones with? How do we know Jones even used what they sent him? How do we know that when Jones converted from the format they sent him to the format he uses for his own analysis, that he did so correctly? How do we know without seeing all the data directly from Jones that some of the data he used didn’t come from sources other than what he has listed?

When you are done answering those questions Dr Mann, could you also explain your argument that only you can understand your emails? I’d really like to know that if you believe this to be true, why you would bother sending emails to other people in the first place knowing that they couldn’t understand them anyway?

much amusement, including charles’ “penny-pinching” which in fact was rightly called out as hypocrisy:

3 June: SMH: Cosima Marriner: Green fatigue
While consumers are losing interest in the environmental impact of daily living, the corporate world is increasingly exploring how sustainable projects can make good business sense.
When Prince Charles boasted of his environmentally friendly lifestyle recently, it didn’t come across quite the way he intended. His preference for wearing extra clothes rather than turning up the palace heating, his efforts to recycle old bathroom curtains into cushion covers, and the way he throws his bathwater on the garden at Highgrove, were all derided in the media as ”penny-pinching”…
The carping about the carbon tax and the tedious to-ing and fro-ing over whether climate change is real have distanced the problem from everyday life. The challenge now is to bring ”green” back to a personal context.
And the business world – traditionally the enemy of the environment movement – is leading the way as the economics of sustainability stack up.
Being green has become ”almost too big now ” for consumers, argues the author of What’s Mine Is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption Is Changing the Way We Live, Rachel Botsman.
”It’s become a political issue. People find it really hard to relate to,” says Botsman, a former adviser on sustainability to Bill Clinton. ‘…http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/green-fatigue-20120602-1zohr.html

Charles Gerard Nelson says:
June 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm
And he got his apostrophes the wrong way round… it should have read ‘want NMS’s raw data?…ask NMS for it.’
And WTF are WUWT’ers? The ‘ers’ of WUWT maybe???
Moral: Don’t post when you’re angry and drunk.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am sorry but you are wrong. Mann’s apostrophes are not possessives. They are mistakenly placed when he wants to pluralise NMS. However, just as the plural of cat is cats, the plural of NMS is NMSs. No apostrophe is needed. Mann is making the same mistake that Anthony made in his earlier post.

The correct rendition of Mann’s tweet would read “want NMS raw data?…ask the NMSs for it”. If the abbreviation is confusing, substitute ‘laboratory’ for ‘NMS’ . . . “want laboratory raw data?…ask the laboratories for it”.

Again, the apostophe in WUWT’ers is an error. Just as a footballer is someone who indulges in football, a WUWTer is someone who indulges in WUWT. Mann is following modern practice of scattering apostrophes about like confetti at a Californian wedding.

As one of just 175 people in my own country – and fewer than 15,000 worldwide – who understand the correct placement of the apostrophe in all cases, I carry a heavy burden but try to assist when and where I am able.

OMG, is he for real? When people are wrong or can’t support their arguments, they tend to become louder and louder, not to mention the rudeness factor. I’ve even seen this in myself when I’ve been wrong; OK, that has only happened once. I thought I was wrong about something. Turns out I wasn’t. ;)

Well Dr Mann (since we now know he’s reading this blog, may as well address the comments to him directly) can I ask you to explain how asking the NMS’s for their data will tell us what data Jones used? If the NMS’s respond, how do we know what they supplied us with is the same as what they supplied Jones with?

#####################

The data Jones uses is posted. You can go grab it directly or you can use the R package I wrote to go get the data.

Then, you look at his flags which indicate the sources.

Take canada for example. You can go to the canadian site and download the data which they provide. You can then compare it with Jones version of the data.

If you are really curious you can go download all the raw canadian data and compre that to the homogenized data. I’ve got a package for that as well.

Again, its perfectly fine for Jones to use homogenized data. he posts his data. he posts the sources where he got it. You can check the two if you like. Its tedious work. I suspect you are not up to doing it. But the tools exists. They are freely available.

“For the record, we know they use homogenized data at CRU, its the raw data we want. But Jones doesn’t want to share.”
This is rather the point here. What raw data do you want? And what makes you think Dr Jones has it available to share? He’s sharing the data he obtained and used.

REPLY: No it isn’t the point, apparently you missed the update on the original comment that started this row. Recall that CRU/UEA lied about having emails on a backup server too, and we all know how that went. Why should we trust CRU/UEA when they say “we don’t have it” when they’ve been caught out before?

It blows my mind that people like Jones and yourself argue against having all data for full reproducibility.

BTW when are you going to come clean on being totally taken in by the ANU death threats thingy…or are you going to ignore it like an FOI request?

Don’t care about the homogenized data. Just want to know who has the raw data. If tax payers paid for raw data collection, there should be raw data available. So who has it?????? And if it isn’t available, heads should roll, pet projects cut, and people should lose their jobs. What is stupid about a tax paying citizen inquiring as to how the #@$% money was spent and where the hell is the raw product we paid for?

I took a brief look at page http://www.scribefire-next.com/edbegleyjr#ld . I’m not sure what that page is supposed to be, it looks like a “parked” domain, but one of the “Sponsored listings” read “Stumble with Friends/ It’s always more fun to Stumble with friends.”

The data Jones uses is posted. You can go grab it directly or you can use the R package I wrote to go get the data.
————————————————————————
Can you please explain the following? I have tried asking in the UK to no avail.

Figure 3: The difference in coverage of land surface temperature data between 1990-1999 and 2005-2010. Blue squares are common coverage. Orange squares are areas where we had data in the 90s but don’t have now and the few pale green areas are those where we have data now, but didn’t in the 90s. The largest difference is over Canada.

Why did the MO not have the Canadian land surface temperature data 2005-2010? I am not aware of any of the stations being closed during that period? And obviously they are operating OK now. But if they were closed during that period could somebody please point me in the right direction?

How can a data source that portrays to be representative appear to choose what stations to include or exclude and or subsequently re-introduce?

As one of just 175 people in my own country – and fewer than 15,000 worldwide – who understand the correct placement of the apostrophe in all cases, I carry a heavy burden but try to assist when and where I am able.
=============================================
“BUT THERE’S A CONSENUS!”
(Oops. Sorry. Wrong argument.)
It’s tough to remember the correct placement of apostrophes. Its nice to know that someone out there is willing to help.
(I know I got at least one of those right.8-)

If I may be permitted a cross-post with what I just said on Bishop Hill (referencing a post by Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit), I think the following topic could be a valuable discussion on WUWT. Perhaps people have comments about how Michael Mann and the Team (along with a much wider and more powerful animus to “do something now” about supposed catastrophic AGW) have contributed to an atmosphere of intolerance for dissenting views within and beyond fields of climate science.

I’m thinking about Steve McIntyre’s comment on dissenting scientific views which are being self-suppressed:

Wondering if we might have a WUWT thread with an appropriate article (if there is such) for discussion of scientists who may see flaws in the CAGW “consensus” (sic) for whom the personal and/or career cost of speaking up seems to great. I think this is not only an issue of courage, since many people may make a kind of cost-benefit assessment of comparing the apparent futility of speaking up (adding merely one small voice to a loud and noisy debate) to the certainty or near certainty of paying a personal price for…. what?

Of course, the particular cases SM is referring to may not dissent from the overall CAGW picture but may simply view the Mannian approach to proxy data as flawed etc. There are many levels of possible dissent, some dealing only with specific kinds of evidence and analysis. I don’t mean to suggest that every scientist who silently objects to Mannian science thereby rejects C-AGW, although some may think that the case is not nearly as complete or air-tight as the activists claim.

You know, for someone on the taxpayer’s dime, this guy needs to understand who puts food on his table and booze in his mouth. I am no where near the stupid or dumb category. And lately, I have gotten a whole lot wiser.

Sorry, Anthony. I just can’t bring myself to care very much what Dr. Mann utters any more. The man has proved to be such a congenital liar and egomaniac over the years that I automatically discard anything he says as utter rubbish.

@ graphite
In this context Mann intends NMS to mean “National Meteorological Services” (plural)…therefore
” want NMS’s raw data?” is perfectly correct. I fear the number of people in your country who understand the proper use of the possesive apostrophe has just plummeted to 174!
Moral: Don’t post when you’re drunk or angry…(a crime, by the way, of which I am not entirely innocent myself!)

…and by the way Mr Mosher, what exactly is the hangup? If everything is “freely available” then why respond that we have to get it from the NSM’s (note, in the computer era it has become common to put an ‘s after an acronym to denote plural)?

As one of just 175 people in my own country – and fewer than 15,000 worldwide – who understand the correct placement of the apostrophe in all cases, I carry a heavy burden but try to assist when and where I am able.
______________________
“Y’re ‘n ‘ld c’*t”- Keith Richards

Sorry for harping on this, but let me make the point in a different way.

Yes Mr Mosher, I know about your tool and yes Mr Mosher, I’m up to the task if I choose to take it on. What you are missing here is that there should be no task in the first place, It should be easy. We’re talking grid data here. Nothing fancy, a spreadsheet with a few lines of dcoumentation and presto! all the data is available to everyone.

We’re facing (according to the IPCC) the biggest danger to humanity in all of history. It is crucial that we take action if the danger is real, and if it is not, that we do nothing rather than waste prescious resources that could be put to better use, or worse, invoke the law of unintended consequences.

The UN has many functions on the world stage. Standardization of telecommunications protocols for example is what makes it dead simple to make a phone call from pretty much anywhere in the world to pretty much anywhere in the world. Making climate data available in a standard format that is easily accessed and easily verified is both a simple task and their responsibility. They have failed their responsibiulities in that regard, and Jones and the CRU are simply an extension of that failed responsibility.

If publishing gridded data was an onerous task, I might understand. But it isn’t. Compared to keeping the telecommunications network running world wide, publishing temperature data in a fashion easily accessed and easily verified is grade school stuff at best. Yet this has not been done, and the excuses from CRU and GISS are ridiculous.

As long as the IPCC with the willing cooperation of CRU and so many others fail in their responsibility, they are twice dam*ed. Once for failing to make the most important data in human history available for as broad an audience as possible, and once more because, having failed to do so, there will always be suspicion that some sort of game is afoot.

Anthony,“It blows my mind that people like Jones and yourself argue against having all data for full reproducibility. “

There’s a basic problem that I keep coming back to – you need to specify the data you are asking for.

As Steven says, you have available everything needed to reproduce what CRU does. It seems what you may be asking for is the raw data that the NMS’s homogenize. If you want raw station data in general, GHCN is the place. But if you want that exact data, I doubt if anyone has ever collected it together. It wouldn’t be of any use to CRU. And aggregated, it wouldn’t allow you to reproduce anything, because each NMS has its own metadata and own homogenization methods.

Dmhoffer seems to be asking for something else – gridded data. That isn’t raw. That’s why specification matters.
REPLY: Nick inspires me to think of a famous line in The Shawshank Redemption. Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?

One day CRU says they don’t have it (their selected raw station data prior to homogenization), another day it suggests they do, then they ask permission to release it. Not lying about what you have/have not matters too, and as we’ve seen from the mailserver backup episode, CRU has lied. They obfuscate too. Look how long it took McIntyre to get a simple station list.

Just saying “go to GHCN” doesn’t cut it, as that is incomplete. You wouldn’t tolerate incomplete data used in a criticism of CRU so I won’t either.

Still no comment on your being taken in by the fake ANU death threats and defending it here as if there were?

No more comments then until you address the question. A simple apology sans your usual obtuse caveats will do. – Anthony
UPDATE: I’ve found your comment addressing the issue on the other thread, again simple is better, your caveat filled comment reads like a small novel. Might I suggest you simply say.

1. There are no credible death threats, nor were there.
2. The media made it appear as though there was.
3. I like many others thought there were, I was wrong

Have to agree with davidmhoffer. NMS’s should be eagerly publishing their data into a collection maintained by the UN. If AGW is really that big of a threat, the data should be made available for all to review and study in a central repository. This is pretty much of a nothing deal. Hire a coordinator or two to set up accounts for the NMS’s and get the project going. This should have been done a decade or two ago. Geez, you could easily stuff all of this data into a free google account. lmao.

I am going to have to moderate the moderator. Anthony, your needling of little nicky on that ANU foolishness is going to cause trouble. Little nicky is going to tell one of his nervous Aussie climate scientist friends that your are harassing him. That clown will tell the next hysterical clown that you are threatening little nicky, and pretty soon the Aussie left-stream media will have a story about a denier plot to cull the noble iluminati of the Aussie climate science industry. You know how sensitive these people are.

If I was Varney, I would have killed that interview 30 seconds into it before I killed him. I don’t think I have ever seen anyone as aggressive or obnoxious in any interview as that arrogant/ignorant asshat.

Keep spewing that angry flat earth zealotry Ed, it’s more than slightly ironic that a man with no more than a high school diploma feels free to instantly dismiss others with a lifetime in studying science whilst at the same time trying to sound like an expert in the field.

Geologists and physicists have no right to question a scientific hypothesis because it’s not their speciality? If that’s the case computer scientists should play no role in climate science either. Bad modelling is 50% of the problem, the other 50% being dishonesty.

The thing with watermelons is they can’t see and don’t care about the consequences of their actions, merely the possible consequences (within a wide margin of error and subject to change) of inaction. Cali may well have better air now, it’s also effectively bankrupt as a result of heavy handed green legislation. There is no middle ground with them, merely levels of extremes.

There are some legitimate arguments to be made about climate change and some illegitimate ones. One of the most illegitimate arguments I can think of is what one’s opponent’s use of English is. Who care how Dr Mann uses apostrophes,come on.

Having done the analysis he reports — assuming I understand him correctly — there is no such thing as raw data, there are only versions, and versions, and other versions of adjusted data. Stations are included in, and excluded out, and never mentioned why. Anything more than 1 to 2 degrees C accuracy is an unwarrented assumption.

Then the adjusted data from GHCN is adjusted into CRU. Why THIS historic station is chosen to fill in THAT cell in THOSE years, but not THESE … is also an exercise left to the student. And policy maker.

So, why doesn’t one of us collect all the available data, organize it, categorize it, and make it available for any layman (like me) to download it and load it up on a spreadsheet, and actually see first hand where the cherry picking/problems are. I bet it would drive certain individuals bananas to have thousands of amatuer average joes scrutinizing thier work, asking the tough questions, etc.

Since Nick Stokes is here I thought I’d repost this just in case he missed it.

Gunga Din says:
May 31, 2012 at 3:28 pm
(I still didn’t do the whole song but I revised the second verse to fit the situation better.)

To the tune of “Stuck in the Middle with You”

Well I don’t know why I caused such a fright,
I had the feeling that something ain’t right,
I made a scare of some emails out there,
And I’m wondering how my rep now will fare,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in Yamal on a yew.

Yes I’m stuck in Yamal on a yew,
The “threats” were against kangaroos,
It’s so hard to keep this egg off my face,
Damage control, yeah, “Someone invaded their space,”
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in Yamal on a yew.

@davidmhoffer 6:46 pm
Keep harping. Your case is well stated and needs further repetition.
If the UN IPCC cannot get accomplished something as simple as providing data in a standardized set of formats as a basif for their most important work, how can we trust the harder modeling, interpretation, and recommendations.

There is a problem with some of the assumptions here that Mann reads this silly blog. He retweeted something from caerbanog666 (hope remembered the proper spelling on that). caerbanog666 does read this blog. And caerbanog666 is correct in his assesment.

Mann’s tweeting whilst tanked is evidence of my “Wildebeest Principle” in action … here, the alcohol has temporarily killed off the weak brain cells therefore leaving only the smart cells to function. Heaven help the world if this is what represents the ‘climate science consensus’.

If the climate science was a serious endeavor to save the world from burning up, climate scientists would be bending over backwards to engage their critics in debate. What do they have to fear, if they have done an honest and professional job of analysis? Jones should have invited McIntyre to come over and have a look behind the curtain. He could do it now.

If climate scientists seriously believe that denier misinformation is the problem, they should be confronting it at every opportunity. The fifty invited consensus cowards who did not show up to address the Heartland Inst. conference missed an opportunity to confront criticism and communicate. What are they afraid of? Snipers?

Why doesn’t the climate science community have a conference and invite skeptics to participate? How are they going to lay misinformation to rest, unless they confront the alleged perpetrators and defeat them in debate?

If they think the public is going to just trust them again after Climategate, they are delusional.

Don Monfort says:
June 2, 2012 at 7:52 pm
….If they think the public is going to just trust them again after Climategate, they are delusional.
===================================================
With Al Gore as their frontman, I didn’t trust them before Climategate.

Like many who read this blog, I could give a rat’s ass if any particular person has or has not had a few drinks and like many here, I’ve been known to have a few late in the evening. Who TF cares? BUT, I would never share a pic of me myself buzzed.

It’s a profession kind of thing, and Mann is old enough to know better.

We are all invited to draw our own conclusions from this event, and it doesn’t make ME more confident in regards to the basic personal rational judgment possessed by Mann.

And we should add to the wreckage of the world’s economy by developing policy based on this person’s opinion?

Uhmm….. drinkers ….such as myself, disavow lunatics like the people above, but….. come on! If someone took a picture of me today, when I wasn’t strumming, I would have looked as lit as Mann and Bagboy.

As to Mann’s lunacy….. what can you say? The dolt believes you can divine temps from tree rings…… how stupid is that?

There is a problem with some of the assumptions here that Mann reads this silly blog. He retweeted something from caerbanog666 (hope remembered the proper spelling on that). caerbanog666 does read this blog. And caerbanog666 is correct in his assesment.

There’s some guy called “Ratty Norvigus” (hope I remember the proper spelling on that). Ratty posts silly comments on the wuwt blog, so I guess he(it?) is a wuwt’er. Must be one of the stupid ones. I guess Mann caerbang666 was partially correct in his assessment.

It is comforting to see Michael Mann becoming more and more rude, loud and arrogant. It is obvious that continual pressure from presentations of the truth at WUWT are getting to him. This behaviour is usual when people know that they are in the wrong and have no evidence to refute the attacks.;

Tom T writes above – “One of the most illegitimate arguments I can think of is what one’s opponent’s use of English is”.
1. You cannot be degrees of illegitimate, like “most”. You are or you are not.
2.”I can think of” is better as “of which I can think”.
3. In 2,. “think of” is better as “demonstrate”. Thinking is within you; to communicate you need to express.
4. “one’s opponent’…” is WRONG. Try “ones opponent’s….”. “One’s” means “one is”.
5. A better complete revision would be “The ability of an opponent to use English is relatively unimportant.”
……………………………………
Unfortunately (though I’m hopeless with typos, always had secretaries to do that), I think that correct English use is very important.
“Insulin” and “Inulin” are two very different chemical compunds. All word symbols have a purpose.

“There is a problem with some of the assumptions here that Mann reads this silly blog. He retweeted something from caerbanog666 (hope remembered the proper spelling on that). caerbanog666 does read this blog. And caerbanog666 is correct in his assesment.”

“Retweeting” as you put it is worse than him reading the blog and making his own assessment.
Who would think a responsible, experienced scientist would do such a thing, let alone lump everyone that contributes to WUWT as being “too dumb”. You’re as silly as he is, and neither of you is “correct”.

I enjoyed the quote about Kepler and Brahe. Look at what Kepler achieved when he finally got access to all of Brahe’s data. Who knows what real science there is to discover in the full, unmolested, data set?

davidmhoffer says
When you are done answering those questions Dr Mann, could you also explain your argument that only you can understand your emails?
————–
Explaining the things to David again.

Emails are a tricky form of communication because it’s very easy to zip some comments off and then realize you sent a message that does not capture your intentions. Partly that’s because things like body language cues and tone of voice are missing.

The other tricky thing is that emails are often between friends or colleagues who know you personally and can tell that you are joking or using irony or playing along with an in joke. There are other bits of contextual information that will not appear in an email and so the very abbreviated form of words in an email, if taken in isolation, will paint a misleading opinion.

Personally I am aware of these issues and pay a lot of attention to the sense conveyed in my emails to ensure the message is accurate. Even then I am often not successful.

The real issue here is that given a series of abbreviate email messages it makes it real easy for mischief makers to surround the emails with their own malicious interpretations. Some people are easily suckered by this tactic. I’m not.

LazyTeenager;
Some people are easily suckered by this tactic. I’m not.>>>>

The notion that only Mann can understand his emails clearly has you suckered, or you don’t believe him anymore than I do and are just trying to make excuses. You need not explain email communication to this audience by the way, I am certain that the vast majority of us communicate via email each and every day, and hence are NOT suckered by Mann’s feeble and clearly desperate attempt to keep what he said in private about climate in general, and his own work in particular, a secret.

Per the video above, Begley said to Varney that only ‘climate scientists’ are qualified to talk about the science of climate. Here he is with Dr. Mann, who never studied climatology, only physics and geophysics. According to Begley, Mann isn’t qualified to weigh in on climate science either.

I dont think these personalised posting’s abut Mann at a bar etc will help WUWT. Its a bit like the HI billboard thing and maybe Moncktons Birth certificate story. Its a huge distraction. Suggest sticking to AGW

“Yes Mr Mosher, I know about your tool and yes Mr Mosher, I’m up to the task if I choose to take it on. What you are missing here is that there should be no task in the first place, It should be easy. We’re talking grid data here. Nothing fancy, a spreadsheet with a few lines of dcoumentation and presto! all the data is available to everyone.

We’re facing (according to the IPCC) the biggest danger to humanity in all of history. It is crucial that we take action if the danger is real, and if it is not, that we do nothing rather than waste prescious resources that could be put to better use, or worse, invoke the law of unintended consequences.”

Bears repeating because it was so well stated!

Political Scientist: ‘We’re facing the biggest danger to humanity in all of history, more than Bubonic Plague, more than Spanish Flu, more than cat-5 hurricanes and tornadoes, more than 6 mile long Asteroids! Now either take our word for it and spend trillions of dollars or go and piece together the data from all the sources because we’re simply too darn busy to roll up everything into a single zip file. But rest assured, we feel your questions are important, and we firmly believe that reproducing our results is vital to the Scientific Method. Don’t worry you’ll have no problem finding every bit of data and you will make no processing errors, trust us, we’re from the government, we’re here to help.’

Mosher hit and run again didn’t he. Maybe he’s compiling everything into a unified package. He’s here to help too. (I think)

“Emails are a tricky form of communication because it’s very easy to zip some comments off and then realize you sent a message that does not capture your intentions. Partly that’s because things like body language cues and tone of voice are missing.

The other tricky thing is that emails are often between friends or colleagues who know you personally and can tell that you are joking or using irony or playing along with an in joke. There are other bits of contextual information that will not appear in an email and so the very abbreviated form of words in an email, if taken in isolation, will paint a misleading opinion.

Personally I am aware of these issues and pay a lot of attention to the sense conveyed in my emails to ensure the message is accurate. Even then I am often not successful.

The real issue here is that given a series of abbreviate email messages it makes it real easy for mischief makers to surround the emails with their own malicious interpretations. Some people are easily suckered by this tactic. I’m not.”

What a daft rationalization: the Scientific aristocracy are essentially talking in code, their educated prose and nuance lost upon the eyes and ears of the Proletariat.

What really worries your side (the side that advances the position that taxpayer owned communication must be kept away from taxpayer scrutiny) is that you probably suspect just as I that all these leftist Scientists who are dumb enough to be sucked in to the climate hoax were also dumb enough to put incriminating things in writing, including lying for their noble cause, and worse.

Sunshine always has been considered the best disinfectant. Just look around and note who is passing out all the sunblock.

If you’re referring to your comment here, I responded some time ago, and I see you have now acknowledged the response. But again it comes down to, if you want me to apologize for something I’ve said, please say what it is. Quoting it would help.

Looks like he is holding water. Has to hit the abs harder and remember that booze cuts down growth hormone production. Other than that, 9-12 months, as long as he gets into the 2 a days and goes high protein/fat and a carb backload, I think he will look the climate warrior part and inspire a new super hero movie.

That is the true goal, isnt it, a CLimate warrior movie? Alec Baldwin chomping at the bit to play the lead

I am no fan at all of Dr.Mann’s rudeness, politics or the way he does his science…but I can see absolutely nothing to ridicule in him going out and having a few drinks with his like-minded friends.
Some people here are in danger of losing a sense of proportion. I appreciate it was put out on social media..but….really?
WUWT and it’s readers are better than this. It is not right.

Keep on David. I have a lot of respect for Steve Mosher, he’s not a troll and he’s said a lot of important things eg re IPCC coverups / suppressions. He handled the 10G pressure of Climategate before the rest of us knew, and he handled that well, full credit and respect.

But when it comes to the science itself, I have less respect for Steve. I’ve seen you rudely unperceptive, Steve, and you don’t seem to have a handle on the subtle corruptions of UHI and Jones’ still-unresolved complicity in Wang’s [self-snip] paper etc that puts UHI far too low and thus allows the homogenized data to appear acceptable when IMHO it is not.

There is often visible to me, quite a divide between those who are fighting corruption, to reclaim integrity in the science; and those who can see that even the basics of Climate Science, with integrity of behaviour restored, are still shonky. We need both. But very often, those who are fighting to reclaim integrity, are somewhat blind to the places, and the often “transcendentally ranting” manner, in which the real frontiers of science are being explored. I don’t like transcendental rants when I see them from others – but I recognize that it can be part of the frisson that inevitably goes together with the intuitive work and abilities of real discoveries, even in the depths of hard science and engineering. All the originators of Quantum Theory knew this. And all the great scientists I have studied closely, Newton being a prime example.

To me, Moshpit clearly illustrates this divide. You are a firstrate upholder of integrity of behaviour in Science, Steve, but the spirit of pure Science does not run in your blood – whereas it does run in mine, despite (or helped by??) my lack of “higher” formal scientific training. Nullius In Verba. IMHO.

“I dont think these personalised posting’s abut Mann at a bar etc will help WUWT. Its a bit like the HI billboard thing and maybe Moncktons Birth certificate story. Its a huge distraction. Suggest sticking to AGW”

Charles Gerard Nelson says:
June 2, 2012 at 5:57 pm
@ graphite
In this context Mann intends NMS to mean “National Meteorological Services” (plural)…therefore
” want NMS’s raw data?” is perfectly correct. I fear the number of people in your country who understand the proper use of the possesive apostrophe has just plummeted to 174!
Moral: Don’t post when you’re drunk or angry…(a crime, by the way, of which I am not entirely innocent myself!)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Chas old chum.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am neither drunk nor angry.

Good to see that you can read Mann’s mind. If I could do that, I wouldn’t be bothering about his use of apostrophes.

My initial post was merely prompted by this being a ‘humour’ thread and seeing someone being certain about a point on which I believed them to be incorrect. I stand by my comment.

Gunga Din says:
June 2, 2012 at 5:33 pm
….
It’s tough to remember the correct placement of apostrophes. Its nice to know that someone out there is willing to help.
(I know I got at least one of those right.8-)

The real issue here is that given a series of abbreviate email messages it makes it real easy for mischief makers to surround the emails with their own malicious interpretations. Some people are easily suckered by this tactic. I’m not.
===============================================
Nick, did you get that?

Attention Real Climatologists – Thanks to WUWT, the era of obfuscating, blustering, blathering, patronizing, arrogant con artists masquerading as scientists is officially over. If you want to be taken seriously, you must act like real scientists.

New Rule: your data must be freely and easily accessible on the web for reproducibility, or your work immediately goes into the circular file; no exceptions.

….. there is no such thing as raw data, there are only versions, and versions, and other versions of adjusted data.
___________________________________
That is what I am seeing. My local weather station is rural North Carolina. In general the high for the day is “Adjusted” up by as much as 2F when reported the next day.

Please reconsider your absurd insinuations in your PR releases that you did not withhold anything to the public. The insinuations do nothing except to publically expose your profound lapses in professional ethics.

You, your associates, the IPCC leadership, the general scientific community, the MSM and the public all know you have been profoundly unresponsive to requests for you to be open and transparent in providing everything you did and used to make your as yet unverified ‘scientific’ climate products. Though all know, some support your unresponsiveness based on anti-scientific thinking/ideologies. Your unverified ‘scientific’ climate products will remain so until you do become totally open and transparent by releasing all info to all people who are interested in your products; any IPCC endorsement of your unverified ‘scientific’ products to the contrary notwithstanding. You know, all those unverified ‘scientific’ products paid for by publically funded research grants performed by you when working under publically funded salaries from publically funded universities . . . . yes, that’s the product that I am speaking to you, Mssrs M. Mann and P. Jones, about.

I think the broader science process already has you both targeted for its ‘YTIRGETNI’ file. Where YTIRGETNI is INTEGRITY shown backwards.

Charles Gerard Nelson is incorrect: an all caps acronym without periods should never have an apostrophe when pluralized. While it is common, and perhaps even accepted, it is still incorrect.

For the record, crticisms actually have very little to do with apostrophe use in general. It is more about the hypocrisy displayed when referring to others as stupid while demonstrating a lack of command of his own language.

A man, who wholly by strange coincidence looks just like Michael Mann, walks into a bar with some freshly cut cylindrical pieces of trees (tree cores) stuck under his arm and says to the bartender, “I will have a beer and a shot of wood alcohol.”

The bartender says, “Yes on the beer. No on the wood alcohol; it is illegal in bars because it is very poisonous to most living things.”

Grinning, the Mann look alike says, “I know it is poisonous, I was going to enjoy using it to torture some AGW data from these little woody friends of mine while I knocked down a few beers.”

LEGAL DISCLAIMER – No actual living entities were threatened with death in the telling of this joke. Just like with the recent worldwide reports about a few ANU scientists receiving some death threat emails turned out to be just a joke.
Sunday Morning Humor(Humour) off/

A mann walks into a rustic bar made of logs and says to the inked and pierced barkeep “I noticed your wood. I’d love to count your rings.” The barkeep replies “Sorry buddy, only my girl gets near my rings.”

Being chubby is generally caused by, except in a handful of cases, that energy intake is greater than the consumed ditto and at the same time by an inappropriate combination of carbohydrates and fat. (Yep, it’s the carbohydrates that cause obesity by activating the insulin production and as a result cause fat absorption. Not by the intake of fat alone.)

Michael Mann can chug beers with any fruity radical green activists he likes, but it sure does show the kind of radical he is under the veneer of “scientist”…… Mann is the kind of guy who considers a socialist rag like “The Nation” to be mainstream and a bit too conventional.

re: Ed Begley, Jr., perhaps we need to publicize a list of all practitioners who do not have their degree in “Climate Science” so that the public and policy makers will know who NOT to listen to…. start with Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al.

“it’s the carbohydrates that cause obesity”
An old friend popped by the other day, with a 12 pack of beer, and after his 9th or 10th my wife suggested he try a sandwich she had prepared earlier. “Thanks, no” he said “I’m trying to cut back on the bloody carbs”.

davidmhoffer says:
June 2, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Sorry for harping on this, but let me make the point in a different way.

Yes Mr Mosher, I know about your tool and yes Mr Mosher, I’m up to the task if I choose to take it on. What you are missing here is that there should be no task in the first place, It should be easy. We’re talking grid data here. Nothing fancy, a spreadsheet with a few lines of dcoumentation and presto! all the data is available to everyone.

#################

well, it is clear you do not know what you are talking about. very few people on this thread do.
(I count Nick Stokes as one of the few people on this thread who does know what he is talking about in this regard )

lets start with CRUTEMP4 data. It’s monthly data. No monthly data is raw. None. It is all processed from daily data. The very process of creating monthly averages from daily data involves analytical decisions and choices in processing.

In CRU4 there are 4228 station monthly records put online. You can go download them today.

Since they are monthly data you have to ask yourself these questions:

1. What is original source
2. Did they make any changes from the original source.

Since they indicate that they make no changes or adjustments, the task of proving that they DO falls to you.

With regards to source data, raw source data for daily stations. That exists as well. GHCN daily
has over 80,000 stations of daily data. Me? I do care what monthly data CRU uses
I dont care what Monthly data is in GHCN. I just use use raw daily data.

You will find some cases where the monthly data exists but there is no record of the daily data.
pretty simple. Dont use the monthly data if you dont have the entire chain.

“But when it comes to the science itself, I have less respect for Steve. I’ve seen you rudely unperceptive, Steve, and you don’t seem to have a handle on the subtle corruptions of UHI and Jones’ still-unresolved complicity in Wang’s [self-snip] paper etc that puts UHI far too low and thus allows the homogenized data to appear acceptable when IMHO it is not.”

1. You have not kept up with any of the work being done in UHI and have no understanding of the various benchmarking exercises.
2. You have no idea or valid estimate of the UHI effect ( on a global level or local level) and so
your conclusion about what is “too high” or “too low” is mere opinion.

However, I will entertain a challenge. using daily raw data I suggest the following

A) you propose a test for the UHI effect
B) you must define a criteria for separating urban from Rural that is objectively measureable.
( hansen uses nightlights, choose your own )
once you choose that criteria you must live with the results of the test.
C. I’ll run a test comparing your urban to your rural.. and we will see what you discover.

Note, we are not looking for the effect in one city.. we are looking for bias in the global estimate.

On March 11, 2012, HADCRUT3 was truncated from 2012.08 to 2012.00.
Later it has been possible to see the data in HADCRUT3gl till 2012.25 (at WoodForTrees.org)
The trend since 2001 is now near -0.8°C (-1.44°F) per century.

This is sort of bizarre in a way. It isn’t so much what is said, but what isn’t said.

Manny boy (isn’t he one of the original pepboys mechanics?) said ‘WUWT’ers’;
not sceptics,
not skeptics,
not deniers,
not flat earthers…
Not any form of generalization referring to all non-CAGW alarmists, only WUWT.

Is WUWT the only place discussing Phil-(ippides wannabe) J’s general announcement of ‘Go fish’ to any replication requests for data? No, then why is the mannic guy so specific?

Seems to me Mr. Mannic suffered a Freudian tweet of the slip. Derision of nonalarmists struggling to understand climate science is one thing; dissing, specifically, the largest science blog that regularly finds the flaws in alarmist chicanery is a completely different aspect. In other words.